Association between human health and indoor air pollution in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on the assessment of indoor air pollutants in terms of concentration and characterization in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have been recently carried out. This review assesses the health effects associated with indoor air pollution exposures in GCC, including other air pollutants (siloxanes, flame retardants, synthetic phenolic antioxidants) which were not explored in a previous study. In addition, the influence of ventilation conditions due to different indoor environments was also investigated. It was revealed that there is a lack of human health assessment studies on most indoor air pollutants in almost all GCC countries, except the United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where few attempts were made for some specific pollutants. Commonly reported plausible health effects potentially associated with indoor air pollution were related to respiratory symptoms and sick building syndrome (SBS). Many of the current health assessment studies in GCC countries were based on predictions and/or estimates of exposures rather than clinically based observational studies. Measured ventilation levels and indoor air velocities in most buildings failed to meet the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) threshold limits of 8 L/s/p and 0.18-0.25 m/s, respectively. Additionally, limited studies have investigated respiratory symptoms and SBS potentially attributable to poor ventilation in the region. It is highly recommended that future indoor air quality (IAQ) studies in GCC should focus more on epidemiologic and intervention studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".